It's always been repugnant to me that, despite his years in Hollywood, Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has done less than zero to stop runaway production or enact incentives to lure TV shows and films back to California and even Los Angeles. (Then again, very little that this piss poor political parvenu has done in the job deserves praise, period.) Clearly, I'm not alone in my lousy opinion of him. Because I'm told that most of the Los Angeles-based crew of the ABC hit show Ugly Betty are placing a full-page ad in Friday's Variety that begs state and Los Angeles officials to do something to keep productions local. Many in the crew are losing their jobs after Ugly Betty became the first TV series to announce it's leaving Los Angeles just two weeks after New York passed a bunch of new new tax credits to lure more showbiz productions. A source tells me that several dozen vendors for the series are paying for the ad "because they not only appreciate us and support us, but they are losing business, too." Yes, the ad is addressed to other officials besides Ah-nuld. And so far there's been barely a word from LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. But we all know that, in the case of California, the fish stinks from the head. And Schwarzenegger is too busy hanging around a Brentwood coffee cafe every morning enjoying his breakfast to bother with important state business like this. (And it also smells just as bad in the vicinity of IATSE's Tommy Short, since he's the buttboy of the studios and networks...) Here is what the ad will say:
To Whom it Should Concern
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Members of the State Senate and State Assembly, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Los Angeles City Council, and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors:
We are writing to you because we just lost our jobs. We are the 300 plus members of the crew of the television show Ugly Betty. We were informed this Tuesday that the production of our show is moving to New York primarily because of the 35% tax incentives being offered by the state of New York. Instead of making good wages and paying our fair share of California state income tax, we will all be collecting Unemployment Benefits. In addition, we will certainly be cutting our spending back to the bone, which will not only cut back our sales tax contributions substantially, but it could end up costing the jobs of the people who provide services and products to us. Not only are these crew positions being lost; all of our local vendors are losing our business.
Our production buys: lumber, paint, wallpaper, cabinets, other building materials, office products, fabric, art supplies, computer equipment, food, beverages, flowers, film, makeup & hair products, wigs, insurance, jewelry, clothing, etc.
Our production rents: lighting equipment, sound equipment, video playback equipment, heavy machinery, office equipment, backdrops, costumes, furniture, scenery, props, soundstages, offices, parking facilities, cars, trucks, storage facilities, computers, camera equipment, grip equipment, editing equipment, drafting equipment, cell phones, computers, toilets, dumpsters, live plants, production trailers, tools, hardware, artwork, walkie talkies, etc.
Our production also uses the services of: dry cleaners, printers, location companies, Special Effects companies, utilities, caterers, payroll services, restaurants, security, Post Production Services, Clearance Houses, etc.
When we shoot on locations around Los Angeles we pay for permits; we pay homeowners & businesses for the use of their property, we hire police and fire department personnel, we pay for facility engineers, etc.
So, while the loss of our individual positions may be insignificant, the loss of this production is staggering. Now multiply this by all the other productions going to New York, New Mexico, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina and other states with incentives, not to mention Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Eastern Europe, etc. and the cost to the California state economy is monumental. We implore you to do everything in your power to level the playing field and bring our jobs back to California by enacting meaningful incentives to keep film and television production in our state.
Sincerely yours
The Crew of Ugly Betty
I think it is terrible for California to not give incentives to TV and Movie productions to get to stay in California, I know that the taxes and stuff is high over in California, (Im from Minnesota) I think there should be incentives to keep shows in California.
Comment by Tim — May 8, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Schwarzenegger is truly, utterly pathetic. I at least thought he’d put his money where his mouth is regarding the industry that made him fantastically wealthy and — as flabbergasting as it still seems — politically powerful. Instead, he backs away from trying to broker a deal in any of the labor disputes of the last year (and this upcoming summer) and does NOTHING to try to keep the filmmaking industry where it belongs in California. TRUE LIES indeed. My heart goes out to everyone involved with “Ugly Betty”– hopefully this situation can somehow be reversed.
PS - I have a good friend whose wife works on a show supposedly set in Santa Barbara but shoots in Vancouver (with imported palm trees). How pathetic is that?!
Comment by Jack Burton — May 8, 2008 @ 1:19 am
I truly empathize with the Ugly Betty crew. Sure, I’ve read a few comments about how people think this show should be filmed in NYC since that’s where the storyline takes place, but honestly? I don’t think the change is necessary. Who cares about authentic skylines and sidewalks which are only seen in the show for a few minutes at a time, if not less? At a time like this, I think that keeping jobs are more important.
I don’t know what’s the problem with Schwarzenegger. He’s an idiot for not trying harder to keep Hollywood bigwigs from taking production out of California. It certainly helps the state economy if productions stay, so what’s keeping him from doing more? I thought these politicians love “$$$” signs.
Comment by Jace — May 8, 2008 @ 1:24 am
Nikki, I think calling Arnold a “piss poor political parvenu” is more than a little harsh. Do you remember how bad off this State was before he took office (Grey Davis). You probably think this country was better with Jimmy Carter as President too.
Comment by Jordan — May 8, 2008 @ 1:43 am
Perhaps the millionaires who run the studio’s and the over paid stars could take a pay cut and help out the lower paid cast of these shows….All the millionaire stars cry about big oil I think Big Studios could SHARE a wee bit of the $$$$ they make from these hits shows and movies….Hollywood = Greed.
how much money is the studio making from Betty right now.
Comment by Jane — May 8, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Add my name to the letter to Arnold from those who are upset that 300 people will lose their jobs due to a decision that sucks.
This is a pathetic move by someone who wants to save money at the expense of 300 hard working people who’ve put their lives into the show.
In your corner,
Becca
Comment by Becca — May 8, 2008 @ 3:27 am
I’m sure you realize, that tax incentives usually begin in the state legislature, and since your state legislature is controlled by the Democrats 48-32 in the assembly, and 25-15 in the Senate, I would begin contact your representatives there. I’m sure you’d have no problem getting a Republican ear about lowering taxes.
And while your at it, fire off a letter or two to State Senator Ron Calderon (D) who sits on the Californa Film Commission….perhaps he can help push some legislation forward.
Comment by Pete Fanning — May 8, 2008 @ 3:49 am
And you can add my name as well to the letter.
And Jordan, this country WAS better off with Jimmy Carter.
Somehow, I don’t see George W actually helping people build houses after his terms are over. Do you?
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — May 8, 2008 @ 4:42 am
You get the government you deserve. Californians elected him — deal with it.
Comment by retiredwriter — May 8, 2008 @ 4:51 am
First, film crew are not underpaid. They are paid extremely well on productions from the major studios. There aren’t too many careers where you can work 3-4 months per year and take the rest of the year off without a worry over finances. In this industry you can - easily. I do it myself.
Second, the overall number of jobs is not being lost. They are merely being moved from one location to another. Yes, it is a loss to CA, but at least they aren’t moving production to Canada or Australia. It’s not a job loss for the USA.
Third, all states are working on an incentive plan and the ones who already have them are working on revamping them. It’s everybody trying to undercut the next guy. It’s nothing but a race to the bottom. There is also concern that some of these incentives go so far as violating the Unfair Trade Act. I’m not an Ah-nold fan, but that could very well be the reason he hasn’t jumped on that bandwagon yet.
Most people in this industry constantly complain about things, but what they don’t realize is that compared to the “real world” outside of fantasy tv and movie land, they actually have it really good. And, yes, I can say this because once again…..I am one of the people in the industry. I work one major movie per year. My wife does not work. My kids are in private school. I own my own home. All on a film crew salary. And, no, I am not a key.
Comment by Robbie — May 8, 2008 @ 6:14 am
Arnold must have some residue resentment against the industry for the way his career spun away from him after The Last Action Hero. He should thank his lucky stars that politics worked out for him, otherwise he’d be on Dancing With the Stars.
Comment by MrJeff — May 8, 2008 @ 6:33 am
This trend has been going on for sometime. I can tell you that most tv shows have move out across to the Canadian border. Mostly becouse it’s cheaper. Now honestly I find stupid for the state not to support their own enterainment industry here.
Comment by chuck — May 8, 2008 @ 6:35 am
When Arnold entered office he ranted about productions in Canada, completely missing the whole point. The percentage of growth in runaway productions has increased far greater in Eastern Europe and , hold your breath, other American States.
From New Hampshire to Louisiana, New York to Michigan, everybody wants in on the act and is doing so with tax incentives.
It’s a matter of basic business and as much as California is the traditional cradle of the industry, it, like every other tradition, is under attack and if the governments in California do nothing, this will be a familiar sight.
Very sad, but very true.
Comment by Original Joe — May 8, 2008 @ 6:48 am
New York is following the first law of taxes & economics. Cut taxes on an industry, that industry will grow and then more tax revenues will be collected.
The problem Schwarzenegger has is that many Californian politicians immediately respond to such tax-cuts as some sort of “benefit for the rich” and shout them down. Forgetting that the rich have the resources to go wherever they damn well feel like, especially when it means lower taxes for them.
Schwarzenegger should fight for some sort of a payroll tax cut, not only for the film industry, but for all the other industries that are fleeing California the way Okies used to enter during the Depression. But he should stop short of offering film producer’s state money. As a Canadian I’ve seen the toxic effect government financing can have on a film industry.
Comment by Furious D — May 8, 2008 @ 6:57 am
I have to agree and disagree with the above posts. Yes, the California government should do more to keep an industry that pretty much funded the developement of southern California in place. I also understand the show wanting to move to New York now that it is financially feasible to add authenticity.
Oh, and to the poster who said “You probably think this country was better with Jimmy Carter as President too.”, I must add: Jimmy Carter brought peace to the middle east, Shrub brought war. I’ll take Jimmy any day over Dubya.
Comment by Meya — May 8, 2008 @ 7:07 am
boo friggin hoo. you lost your jobs and you expect state regulations and tax incentives to keep your job.
“please sir, regulate us back into employment.”
i got an idea, when UNIONS push to grab more money for their members, they better make damn sure that they keep their wages / costs marketable.
in this case, they forgot to take into account that other locations aren’t bankrupt and in a free market, can offer incentives to productions to bring in their services.
the state can’t offer incentives to your production because it can’t currently meet its budgeting goals. you should have asked your government to be more fiscally responsible 20 years ago and not overextend taxpayer responsibilities.
don’t you find it interesting that your union dues / taxes, as high as they are… are doing nothing but help to DRIVE OUT your jobs?
you’ve allowed this to happen, even encouraging it in some cases. interestingly, you do all that you know how to do… take out an advertisement and beg.
sad but predictable.
Comment by brad — May 8, 2008 @ 7:07 am
What? You want incentives for film production so that it stays in California? As in “big, fat tax cuts for rich corporations”? Now, that’s something I never thought I’d read on a Village Voice-related website.
Comment by Incentivize — May 8, 2008 @ 7:11 am
Welcome to New York!
you’ve already given away the farm with your frigging quarter day weeks…
Comment by jmrnyc — May 8, 2008 @ 7:21 am
What a shame that all the “writers” in Follywood think it’s governments business to affect business. Blame the greedy owners of the show for moving the production. It’s their RIGHT to do whatever the hell they want with their property. Chalk this retarded piece up to an uneducated scribe who thinks the government should intervene in the private affairs of people cause somehow, somewhere, someone got their little feelings hurt or they lost a job. Give me a freaking break!
Comment by Realist — May 8, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Becca my dear:
Showbusiness exists to make money. Hence the “business” element of the description. As does the company that created the computer I’m typing on, and the one that builds the routers this information will be transmitted through. Grow up for goodness sake…
That said I agree that Arnold is entirely asleep at the wheel as regards to all things biz related. MIA with the labor issues and in steps to make the state more competitive. Very weird.
Comment by mikey — May 8, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Sky-high taxes and onerous regulations are forcing many businesses out of California. (I know that because I own one.) States need to realize that actions have consequences. I’m certainly not going to sit around and lose money, plus see my competitors run rings around me, because Sacramento is full of demagogues who never saw a tax they didn’t like.
Comment by Ted — May 8, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Arnold is doing what liberal Democrats in California want him to do: keeping taxes high for big business. And the television and movie studios are part of big business. Ms. Finke obviously does not see the irony in this.
Comment by Carol — May 8, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Once again, none of the OTHER problems which focus on California are raised. Shooting in the “13 western states” brings on Post-60’s residuals obligations. Shooting outside the country escapes SAG.
Think about the cost to fly every man, woman, and child from Los Angeles (or wherever) to New Zealand (or Canada, etc), first class, and house them, and feed them, and give them per diems, and extra tickets to return home or have family come out. FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON A PRODUCTION. That ridiculously large dollar amount is STILL LESS than the costs which would brought on SOLELY due to IATSE (and to a lesser, but not insignificant, extent SAG). You want to stop runaway productions - talk to the guilds first.
Comment by IDontGetIt — May 8, 2008 @ 8:22 am
It seems to me the obvious is being totally missed here… they’re moving production because of TAX INCENTIVES. Yes, those lovely little things that brought production of the next Johnny Depp film (Public Enemies) to my beloved state of Wisconsin. Throwing all of this at the governor will get you nowhere.
Comment by Coop — May 8, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Why don’t you complain about the worthless democrat led legislature that wants to impose more business taxes to make companies leave California. I believe Arnold was one of the few stars who took a pay cut to keep production in California. So why don’t you all go after the democrat stars who run around with Barrack and Hillary genuflecting before their greatness and complain to them.
Comment by Brian — May 8, 2008 @ 8:31 am
First, could it be that some of the Ugly Betty people just plain want to move to New York? It’s actually a nice place to live, once you figure out how it works.
Second, assuming this really is all about tax breaks: Sorry, but Arnold is the good guy here. He’s just trying to collect the tax revenue needed to pay for the road repairs, bridge repairs, school renovations, health insurance programs for poor people, and other stuff that those of us here who are Democrats say we think the government should provide.
The real bad guys here are the governments of New York and Vancouver — what are they doing shortchanging their own taxpayers to steal jobs from California taxpayers? — and, more important, the production executives who are nickel and diming California by moving the jobs to New York.
The production executives and production companies actually called about their viewers, they would be buckle down and pay the taxes necessary to keep their viewers alive and comfortable.
Comment by A spouse — May 8, 2008 @ 8:31 am
I think you’re missing the liberal irony here - Schwarzeneggar is only doing what you want Obama to do, tax the rich to the hilt. New York is offering tax cuts to rich entertainment companies so they’re leaving high-tax California. If/when Obama is president and penalizes capital and investment with higher taxes, extrapolate this situation across the entire economy.
Why aren’t you saving any scorn for the Ugly Betty production company chasing the tax cuts, or New York for poaching?
Comment by Joe Melnick — May 8, 2008 @ 8:33 am
You can’t have it both ways. You do want tax cuts for big corps or you don’t? Three monts ago ABC was the devil, now your angry we are not giving them tax breaks! Is it that there are NO tax breaks for Ugly Betty, or not ENOUGH? How much do the show runners/producers/the stars/Salma Hayek make per ep and how much will they with syndication? Could they have cut back a bit to make the deal work-I wonder? So the tax payers need to pay (because it has to be made up in other ways) so Selma Hayek makes more money…thats fair!
Comment by realworldperson — May 8, 2008 @ 8:35 am
And this coming after Schwarzenegger demanded that the production of Terminator 3 move (very expensively) from Canada to L.A. so that his campaign wouldn’t be smeared with “runaway production” allegations.
Of course, Arnold’s not on “Ugly Betty.” And he’s already in the Governor’s chair. So I guess he’s got no reason to care.
Comment by Nick — May 8, 2008 @ 8:41 am
If the idiots in Sacramento were not so obsessed with global climate rumors and funding illegal immigration they might actually do what should have been done the day that ARrrrnold took office - the establishment of the California Film Industry as a State Heritage Industry, which would exempt it from state taxes altogether. How many productions do you think THAT law would bring back to sunny Southern California. There are many who live here who disparage our industry out of sheer ignorance, and their representatives are more interested in advancing bizarre social agendas, rather than providing for an environment that could bring a stunning prosperity to our state. With a huge budget deficit, compliments of a huge state government,you would think they would do almost anything to benefit a predominantly liberal establishment like the film industry, and enrich its inhabitants. Alas - no. What the socialist California legislature really wants is to make the State government the largest industry, and they are almost there. The Governor is either asleep, or inept or intentionally destroying us. Your guess is as good as mine. What an ingrate.
Comment by shawn — May 8, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Calif is a very governmentally liberal state, after all, perhaps even more so — believe it or not — than New York. For example, there was an article a few months ago that described how, due in part to very strict pro-labor laws in CA, it’s even more expensive for restauranteurs to operate their business here than in NYC.
So due to the brilliant voters of the Golden State electing a whole raft of very, very liberal politicians to run things in Sacramento, the idea of lowering fees and taxes is not exactly a popular idea. Raising fees and taxes, yes. Lowering them, no.
Comment by Tamara — May 8, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Whenever some studio moves production to a state that throws a trinket like a tax break, I am reminded of what the state of Iowa did for a film producer. The state gave a way a tax break equivalent to 50% of the production cost to film a movie entitled…South Dakota. South Dakota thanks Iowa for the free publicity and for shouldering the inconveniences associated with film-making. Much like the read Deadwood, SD, thanks the locale that hosted the HBO series of the same name.
Schwarzenegger should simply mention this episode and ignore the letter. If the setting for Ugly Betty is supposed to be NYC, why should California give tax subsides for something that essentially promotes some other locale?
Comment by Brad S — May 8, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Forget about all the strike stuff, this is the real battle right here. Keep the production jobs in California! You can’t spend decades building up a specific industry and talent pool and then suddenly pull the rug out from under everything.
The trickle-down is devastating. (Trickle-down isn’t even the right term.) It’s a thunderstorm.
Comment by Skip Entro — May 8, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Jane- get real. Who are you kidding?
Comment by Anonymous — May 8, 2008 @ 9:49 am
when a star gets 20 million a picture with the odd Lear jet thrown in, does anyone really believe they have an understanding that those who make them look good need to have their industry protected?… please!… Arnold has made his money he doesn’t have to help the California film industry…
Comment by Martin — May 8, 2008 @ 9:55 am
California was a mess before Arnold. Way worse then it is now. If you want to blame Arnold for anything, how about all the money he is taking away from the public schools he said he never would. Stop whining. I worked in production, and although it sucks to be laid off, you will all land great jobs. Think about the children and the lack of classroom attention they will get when the classrooms have 45 children in them. Let’s see, entertainment or education? I have to side with education.
Comment by phil dale duckie — May 8, 2008 @ 10:03 am
OKAY Liberals, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t tax the hell out of business to pay for who knows what AND expect business to sit there and take it. The Democrats you elect are the ones responsible for making the business climate difficult for industry. The schools get the lions share of the state budget and turns mediocre employees and future prisoners.
Comment by Efrain Rojas — May 8, 2008 @ 10:07 am
What? Lower taxes in California? Not going to happen.We need to fund all our pet projects.
Comment by Bill — May 8, 2008 @ 10:14 am
The crew should move with the show. What a perfect opportunity to get out of that second-rate town! LA SUX!!!!
Comment by T. — May 8, 2008 @ 10:25 am
You guys are babies!!! This has been happening in NY for years and years, so I’m supposed to feel sorry for hollywood. It DOES matter where you shoot, if “Sex and the City” shot in LA it wouldn’t have half of it’s magic. NY is a character all of it’s own. I’m happy I won’t hav to see anymore horrible NY backlot shots, because they’re atrocious!!!
Comment by trey — May 8, 2008 @ 10:32 am
After working in production in Los Angeles for over 10 years, I am finally moving. Over the last 4 years, I have actually only been in LA for a total of 4 months. Every show I have done has been on location. Not because of a design concept or because the show is scripted for a different city. Simply because of REBATES.
I wish I could say I was going to miss California.
Comment by Elizabeth — May 8, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Stop yer bloody WHINING “Ugly Betty” crew. Layoffs are part of the biz when you’re freelance (aka “well paid)crew and each and every one of you CHOSE to take freelance jobs (because they pay more) rather than do the 9 to 5 white collar/blue collar much more secure routine 90% of the country does. Shows come and go. The movie and TV production biz is international…it goes where it’s cheaper. Why would I buy a $100 bottle of wine if the same bottle is $70 down the street?? I wouldn’t. And let’s put this in perspective…50 years ago, ALL Studio movies and most TV (except those shot in NYC) shot in Hollywood. Yes you’ve lost shows to other states and countries but you probably still retain 85 percent of a much bigger pie than 50 years ago (with the advent of 100 cable channels, 4th and 5th networks, direct to DVD flicks and far more movies and TV shows being made and released today than 50 years ago). The fact that you seem to think ALL TV and movies should still shoot in LA comes across as a hugely spoiled “sense of entitlement” and just plain greedy.
The reason politicos in California shy away from Tax breaks for the biz is…the “business” part of show biz is still centered in LA and is perceived by most non industry types and hugely flush with cash (just read “Variety” or the LA Times Calender section any given day to see the huge money deals happening). If you’re a politician pushing for “public money handouts” (aka “tax breaks”) to a RICH RICH industry seemingly with cash to burn (the “glamor/star” bling encrusted element of the biz that is also centered around LA doesn’t help this public perception of the industry, whether true or not)isn’t going to sit well with a laid off dock worker in San Pedro or the single mom holding down 2 clerical jobs to make ends meet come election time.
You want shows to stay in LA…simple…CUT YOUR RATES!…the era of the key grip or the gaffer with the million dollar home is about over (especially in this real estate market..)..The studios pay serious dollars for stars, cool salable concepts/scripts, eye candy CGI effects and, to a lesser extent, “star” directors because those elements bring people to theaters. That what brought em in en masse to “Iron Man” (which WAS shot in LA but could have just as easily shot in Toronto or Sydney, like the upcoming “Hulk” redo and “Superman Returns” did) Yes, behind the scenes technical crew are VITAL to getting shows done but there are now good crews all over the world and once a crew has reached a certain level of excellence, the audience won’t know (or care) if the movie shot in LA or Australia. The studios, however, will see the 8 or 10 million dollar savings differential on a mega$picture and LIKE the idea of Sydney or Toronto. This is the new world order of the film biz…Get over it and get used to it. Adapt or die said Darwin then and it still applies now.
Comment by riley — May 8, 2008 @ 10:42 am
“Perhaps the millionaires who run the studio’s and the over paid stars could take a pay cut and help out the lower paid cast of these shows” - Jane, May 8, 2008
Jane you ignorant slut.
This issue is not about cast pay but studio decisions to save money by moving production that affects CREW JOBS!
The actors on the show will still be working in NYC.
Pay attention to the issue/topic please.
Comment by reelbusy — May 8, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Nikki,
The pilot for “Ugly Betty” was filmed in New York, and then the show moved to LA. No one complained.
The pilot for “3 Pounds” was filmed in LA and the show moved to New York. No one complained.
Shows move. Get over it.
I also think it’s unfair to attack Tom Short as he represents the IA technicians in New York also.
Comment by Dan — May 8, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Real simple. Want production in CA, then keep the costs in check. This is a business where we pay people $400 a day to stand at a snack table. Granted, I do think Arnold could show more leadership and have a stronger public/private partnership in the industry, just as they do in other sectors. Arnold is part of the solution, NOT part of the problem.
Comment by McQuade — May 8, 2008 @ 11:06 am
reelbusy,
while you are calling Jane an ignorant slut…
you fail to realize that just like the show will continue to employ actors in NYC it will also employ crew in NYC! The move isn’t to cut crew, it is to take advantage of the tax incentives. The show will employ the same number of people of NYC as it did in LA.
Comment by Intrigued — May 8, 2008 @ 11:09 am
L.A. is a mess. Such slimy ineffective government, from Schwarzenegger (who may be sticking it to the entertainment industry because he is finished in movies, and because most of the industry doesn’t support him politically,) to the smarmy ineffective Villaraigosa who is turning L.A. into little Tiajuana and is part of that circle jerk of hideous councilman Jack Weiss and LAPD’s Bratton, and who hasn’t done a single good thing for this city and was too busy screwing around with that anchorwoman, to the likes of arrogant Jack Weiss whose nose is up in the air when it comes to doing his job and serving constituents with the quotidian aspects of his job and who sold out L.A. to real estate developers. Let’s not even get into Sheriff Baca and his celebrity antics. These guys have no interest in their current job, but are more concerned with their own ambitions and getting their next job - Villaraigosa still thinks he’s going to be Governor, Weiss thinks he’s going to be City Attorney, Scwarzenegger thinks he’s going to be President.
How are we any better off than with Gray Davis? We’re in budgetary crisis, Schwarzenegger ended up hiking the car tax anyway (which is the issue that booted Gray Davis and got Schwarzenegger elected.)
Comment by L.A. gone — May 8, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Arnold recently held a meeting a photo-op with NY Mayor Bloomberg - I wouldn’t be surprised if the two agreed on moving productions to NYC. Bloomberg acts, Arnold reacts.
Comment by savvydude — May 8, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Would somebody here please get a dictionary or take a civics or economics class? Tax incentives are not tax cuts. They are akin to depletion of oil resource allowances, farm price supports, or manufacturing subsidies; i.e., a way to encourage continued investment in a market without penalizing profits. Production tax breaks are supposed to accrue to the budget of the film, not the general operating overhead of the producing entity (if they do, it’s a matter of funny bookkeeping and possible fraud, not legislative intent). In a truly Capitalist society none of this would be needed, of course, but we have so many tarriffs, trade deals, give-backs and tax loopholes in place that a free market doesn’t really exist. Capitalism is great! Let’s try it some time!
Comment by Santayana — May 8, 2008 @ 11:52 am
In California does the governor have the authority to lower taxes all by himself?
Shouldn’t most of these complaints be directed at the State Legislature?
Comment by Sean — May 8, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
The first few comments had me thinking the world was ending because we’re losing a TV show set in New York, but show in LA. Thanks to all the folks who made reasonable comments on the board. Nikki is way off-base with this one.
Comment by Jay — May 8, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
C’mon…you California Democrats can do it….the Wisconsin Democrats did
Comment by Pete Fanning — May 8, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Sylvester Stallone was presented with a certificate of recognition by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for filming Rocky Balboa (2006) in Los Angeles at a time when other filmmakers are moving their business to cheaper states or overseas locations to cut costs.
Nobody told Ugly Betty to move to New York , including Scwarzenegger…it was their choice…. blame the show producers for the move of being so cheap!
Comment by Bar. Linus — May 8, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
reelbusy,
while you are calling Jane an ignorant slut…
you fail to realize that just like the show will continue to employ actors in NYC it will also employ crew in NYC! The move isn’t to cut crew, it is to take advantage of the tax incentives. The show will employ the same number of people of NYC as it did in LA.
Comment by Intrigued — May 8, 2008
And the point of the article is about CA losing jobs to NYC because of the tax incentives.
Thank you for your help making my point and agreeing with me.
I accept your apology.
Comment by reelbusy — May 8, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
OMFG!! You LA people are killing me, there is NO SUCH thing as runaway production on LA. You still hav 80 percent of what’s filming. What abt Hancock tht’s supposed to b in brooklyn, but shot in LA, or the constant number of films that do 1 or 2 weeks in NY and thn the rest in LA. Nikki you’re WAY off base with this issue. I hope Dirty Sexy Money,or Heroes, and the other 10 shows tht double NY in LA move too. Because I’m sick of seeing the same NY backlot (with steam on every corner)in every show. It’s embarrasing!
Comment by trey — May 8, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
New York State only passed these tax incentives after losing a lot of productions to Connecticut after Connecticut instituted very large tax incentives in mid-2006 that made New York’s own tax incentives look insignificant in comparison.
If all the states keep one-upping each other, eventually they’ll be paying companies to make movies locally.
Comment by Greg Andrew — May 8, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
To all those who say crews are overpaid; “Bullsh*t”. I do not know any below the line crew members who only work 6 to 7 months a year and are living high on the hog.
Also note, that below the line jobs are highly specialized and take years of training and experience to master.
Thanks to all others who empathize with our plight.
Comment by Stephen — May 8, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Nicki,
I think you missed this one. I can’t count how many pilots I have worked on in NY only to hear that they will do the series in LA. The list is to long to write down. NO one complains, it is just what happens.
If you think LA and CA have high taxes / costs, wait till you get to NY. Heating bills, it does get cold here… it even rains here on occasion, sometimes LA producers forget that. Toll roads everywhere, Higher car insurance costs, lack of studio space, lack of parking (or you can pay $50 for the day midtown + 18% tax on that $50) etc.
Comment by KB — May 8, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Another piece of evidence for any IATST people who thought the WGA was the bad guy during the strike –
Comment by a showrunner — May 8, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
What can we expect from The Gov? I voted for Arnold, and as far as I’m concerned here’s a man who has
broken dam near every promise he made while running for his office. Broken promises or lies… what does it matter?
He’s managed to offend, and betray pretty much all on both the left and the right.
What a truly useless Governor… we can at least console ourselves in that he’s failed everyone equally. (except of the prison gaurds union of course)
Comment by George — May 8, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
I suppose this is the first time you’ve ever favored a tax cut of any kind. California was over-taxed before the Governator and I imagine it will remain over-taxed well into the future. Your political commentary is always very amusing. I would say stick to writing about what you know, but I’ve never been able to figure out what that might be.
Comment by reformed lawyer — May 8, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
I don’t understand why you people are so upset at this one show leaving LA for NY, when you didn’t say a word about the dozens of TV shows and major films that have left the US for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Romania, Czech Republic, etc. The tax giveaways in those countries are no fdifferent from the state giveaways here.
And if you actually thought about it, where does that money come from - those millions of dollars given to greedy film producers? They come from state tax dollars normally used for roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police, firefighters, and teachers.
Are you really willing to pay millions of more tax dollars to film producers in order to maintain the same level of state services?
The answer is NOT MORE INCENTIVES - the answer is eliminate ALL incentives. Don’t divert tax dollars to fat and greedy film producers.
Doug Hart, NYC
Comment by Doug Hart — May 8, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Anyone who states that “overpaid” crews are the reason for runaway production is showing their utter ignorance of the facts. Writers, directors, the interminable list of producers on every project and actors make more, and more, and then more still while IATSE gives away every possible thing we ever had. Making these concessions is acceptable to many of us when it’s in the name of keeping the industry viable and local. Watching the “guilds” demand more knowing all the while that they will have the first class tickets waiting to take them wherever the production finds the best deal is what keeps many BTL folks from supporting them in any fashion.
Trey, McQuade, Riley - you’re making fools of yourselves.
Comment by CLT — May 8, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Think about the cost to fly every man, woman, and child from Los Angeles (or wherever) to New Zealand (or Canada, etc), first class, and house them, and feed them, and give them per diems, and extra tickets to return home or have family come out. FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON A PRODUCTION. That ridiculously large dollar amount is STILL LESS than the costs which would brought on SOLELY due to IATSE (and to a lesser, but not insignificant, extent SAG). You want to stop runaway productions - talk to the guilds first.
Comment by IDontGetIt — May 8, 2008 @ 8:22 am
Since “Ugly Betty” is TV series, let’s talk runaway TV series:
Obviously, “IDontGetIt”, you live up to your name because you know nothing about what you are talking about. When they go out of country, they usually can only send the ’star’ of the show and one or two of the guest stars. Maybe a director or two. But they don’t send ‘every man, woman and child from LA’ to another country — they hire local directors, they hire local actors to fill out the rest of the lead roles, and the guest star roles, and most of the directors are local hires too. And so is the crew. They don’t send many people to other countries and pay per diems and housing and plane tickets. And rarely do they send children because to send a child, you have to send a parent, and a teacher as well. So it all goes to local hires.
And while movies might have a bigger budget to send a few more people from LA, most of them are local hires as well.
Other countries give tax incentives to film/tv companies to help their crews and actors get work and to help their local merchants benefit from having people there,too. Usually an American can’t work in their countries if the job can be filled by a local hire. Only the US opens its arms to people coming from Canada and elsewhere and taking jobs away from Americans as long as they will do it cheaper.
You know there was a lot of whining during the writers strike about how the writers were starving out local businesses and hurting the economy of LA by not allowing production to go on. Well, now it’s time for LA to step up and do what others do to keep production here. If it’s such an important part of the economy that the work stoppage hurt it, then think what not having it here will do to your bottom line.
Comment by between the lines — May 8, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
local 52 grip
I cannot believe some of the comments on here, get real people shows come and go, the grips, electrics, dressers and most of the people on that job are union so they can just go to another show.(unless they suck at their job)
you fools should have taken the ad out against the AMPTP since IATSE is going to be negotiating our next contract after they are done with SAG and AFTRA, damn I would have even jabbed at the idiots over at WGA for making the majority of us lose work for 3+ months.
oh and nikki show some respect for our President Tom Short, your not in IATSE and you probably wouldn’t know a c-stand from a sandbag so stfu
Comment by pat cracks — May 8, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Oh “Between The Lines” if you only knew just how much I do get it.
Rest assured, crews in foreign countries only go so far. There are only so many talented editors, etc., in a given geographic area, and those get snapped up pretty damned quick with everyone having to shoot overseas.
On top of that, established directors tend to want their own people, or at least people they have worked with before. If you are thinking that the director (or Line Producer for that matter) will say “oh, ok, hire all the people in New Zealand, I’m sure it will be fine” you are off your nut. Trust me, you are OH so wrong.
Please understand. I have no intention of debating you or replying further. For anyone interested, feel free to IMDB a wide-release picture which shot overseas. Then start clicking through the actors and BTL’s and see what country they are from. Then, factor backwards any necessary hires for incentives (e.g., you usually need “a spend” for the credit or “points”. On the point system, if you hire a director who is from that country you get some points, actors are other points, shooting location is points, where you conduct post is points [although THOSE points usually come back home because its too iffy to do post where you can’t control anything], etc). So back out a few people to get points, and see how many locals you have left.
Anyway, the point remains. When you fly the ATL and BTL people to the foreign country, there has to be a reason. The reason is the guilds, post-60’s, and all the other craziness which has crept into the guild agreements over time.
Comment by IDontGetIt — May 8, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Yes, God forbid that a show that supposedly takes place in New York should shoot in New York. Oh, the terrible injustice of it all!
*yawn*
Comment by NYC CREW — May 8, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
I am an IATSE member who lives outside of CA. I can’t begin to tell you how many times positions in my area are filled by people from LA even though we have available and qualified crew here. It’s all in who you know in this business, not what you know. Heaven forbid one of us goes to CA to try to work, though. We’d be on the street with a coffee can peddling for change before the sun set.
I’m about fed up with production companies coming to my area with their overpaid executives trying to save a dollar here and there while claiming they are on a tight budget. Well, if you are on a tight budget, quit flying people in from LA and housing them. Cut your costs there. Don’t try to screw me out of a few bucks in mileage. Cold pizza and pop tarts on the craft service table are getting old, too.
My state does have incentives and work has picked up since the incentives were put into place, but they are also bringing in people from LA to work, and I’m not just talking about key positions and department heads either. The last production I worked on had office PA’s flown in from CA!!! This is not just a problem in my area either. It’s all over the US. We want a chance to work just like you guys do. So, all of you guys in CA are going to be hard-pressed to find any sympathy outside of your home state.
And, I completely agree with the comment above about $400/day to stand over the craft service table. It’s absurd. Around here the production companies that come in from LA are so cheap they don’t even hire medics on a lot of shows. So, craft service gets to carry around the first aid kit and hand out tylenol and bandaids. I guess since they are doing that, too, that makes it a $400/day job. LOL!
Comment by Sam — May 8, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
IDon’tGetIt,
I don’t have to read IMDB, I am intimately aware of four series that shot in New Zealand. Each of them had one lead American star and the rest were New Zealand or Australia hires. Each episode had one American guest star sent over, the entire rest of the cast was New Zealand or Australia hires. The talent pool there is so small that actors were dressed up differently, with hair and makeup as to not be recognizable as other characters. They weren’t flown in from the States to make up for small talent pool. As for crew, the UPMs down there were American but he couldn’t bring anyone with him, he had to hire local everything. Directors did come from the US and from Canada, and local hires.
Writers and Post were located in LA so they were Americans. Oh and I know plenty of people who had long term work relationships with producers who could not go with them when a show was taken to Canada. In fact, I worked on a pilot done in LA that was then shipped to Canada for series… in that case the lead actors were American, but none of us got to go work up there, even though our work is what got the pilot greenlit.
So I maintain that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Comment by Anonymous — May 9, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Uh! Ugly Betty is a piece of crap & remains on ABC only because of Disney pandering to the huge Mexican demographics in all markets…lost jobs…governor’s fault…Not!!…people lose jobs daily…w/ marketable skills & an education (both of which most of the crew on the show most likely lack)they can get another job…the only blame to be placed is on themselves!!
Comment by John — May 9, 2008 @ 9:32 am
It’s funny, there are a number of posters here that I regularly agree and disagree with, and for once, the people I usually label as self-important nutjobs see this move for ‘Ugly Betty’ as small potatoes, while the more balanced opinions seems to be questionably up in arms.
I’m a bi-coastal Below the Liner, understanding the numerous differences of working between New York and LA, and while there’s definitely an enormous number of more jobs in LA, I consider shooting in NY a considerably more challenging beast. Sometimes this proves enormously redeeming, other times merely frustrating.
As for the move of Ugly Betty, it is sad that California, a state whose very bedrock is film and television, has such abominable tax incentives that the producers would be so quick to cut and move east. I don’t blame the producers, as it’s no just their personal profit, but their responsibility to watch the bottom line, keep overhead low, and keep profit margins high.
Here’s my query: When the WGA strike happened, it took around a week for NBC’s ‘Heroes’ to shut down. They cancelled their last nine episodes, and the production crew was sent packing. In essence, these jobs were eliminated. As a BTL’er, we’re all freelance. If you’re good at your job, you will find work. The jobs remain there. The job market may have just shrunk by 300, but beyond the inconvenience of seeking new employment, it doesn’t hurt the crew.
Actually, that’s an important part. No Below-the-line crewmembers worth their salt are massively suffering from these job losses. That’s part of the territory. Anyone who really cries for us does not understand the nature of our work.
Beyond that, though, what of the shows that were cancelled by the strike or are failing to bounce back in its wake? For example ‘Womens Murder Club’ [sic] was receiving adequate ratings pre-strike, but is quickly spiralling into cancellation. What of these jobs?
When 52 series shut down during the strike, that was rough on BTL’ers. When 1 series moves to New York, that’s hardly newsworthy.
Comment by Anonymous — May 9, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Nikki Finke, how come your headline doesn’t read, “Unemployed ‘Ugly Betty’ Crew Blame L.A. Mayor, Cal Legislature For Show’s NY Move”? Why heap all your scorn on Arnold? Aren’t Hollywoodites typically part of the hue and cry against special commercial interests having the ear of politicos? Or is that only everyone ELSE’S special interests? No? So if Arnold went out of his way to arrange lucrative tax breaks for body building studios in California, that’d be A-OK with Hollywood, right? Yeah, I didn’t think so……
Comment by mjkbk — May 9, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Boo hoo. How much do the “stars” and directors, producers, ABC, et al make on this show? Quit whining and take the money from the big shots and give it to the gaffs.
Look what happened at CBS - they paid Katie all that money and their news still sucks!
Comment by BooHoo — May 9, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Score 1 more more show for NY. What’s that make it? 15 TV shows in NY (Incl. soaps) and 80 in LA?!!!
20 films in LA shot to NY’s 1?
As a New York Agent I’m thrilled by this move and hope it brings more. But there’s along way to go still
We New York Ten per centers have been getting the short end of the stick since the Dodgers and The Giants went left coast in the Mid 1950’s.
Comment by Agent Provocateur — May 9, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
boo freakin hoo.
Half of that crew was brand new, post-strike. You all thought you lucked in to a sweet deal, finishing off two months of the season on a sure-thing show and reap the benefits of being a third year show. If you had been there since the beginning, you might not have been so surprised about the decision to move. The producers have always wanted to do that. They always wanted the show to be more New Yorky, less greenscreen for every exterior.
So quit your bitching. Stop putting ads in Variety and save your money for something else, like maybe if SAG strikes. THAT would be something worth bitching about.
Comment by filmgrip — May 11, 2008 @ 10:55 am
I guess you can blame Arnold, certainly all the leftist lemmings do.
The tax structure and overregulation is what has been running productions out of California for 20 years.
The State Assembly is directly responsible, but the Dems will never admit their own culpability.
The only thing dumber than blaming Ah-nuld is the person saying how the Country was better off under Jimmy Carter. Gasoline was more expensive (adjusted for inflation) then it is now, and Carter single-handledly allowed Islamic Facism to take command in the middle east. Look up what happened to Iranian moderates in the wake of Carter’s visit to Iran.
Comment by Yipicya — May 11, 2008 @ 7:41 pm